Are We Alone In the Universe? New Analysis Says Maybe

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Denny Crane

It's not even loaded!
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
73,114
Likes
10,945
Points
113
http://www.space.com/12421-alien-life-rare-universe-extraterrestrials-seti.html

Scientists engaged in the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) work under the assumption that there is, in fact, intelligent life out there to be found. A new analysis may crush their optimism.

To calculate the likelihood that they'll make radio contact with extraterrestrials, SETI scientists use what's known as the Drake Equation. Formulated in the 1960s by Frank Drake of the SETI Institute in California, it approximates the number of radio-transmitting civilizations in our galaxy at any one time by multiplying a string of factors: the number of stars, the fraction that have planets, the fraction of those that are habitable, the probability of life arising on such planets, its likelihood of becoming intelligent and so on. [10 Alien Encounters Debunked]

The values of almost all these factors are highly speculative. Nonetheless, Drake and others have plugged in their best guesses, and estimate that there are about 10,000 tech-savvy civilizations in the galaxy currently sending signals our way — a number that has led some scientists to predict that we'll detect alien signals within two decades.

Their optimism relies on one factor in particular: In the equation, the probability of life arising on suitably habitable planets (ones with water, rocky surfaces and atmospheres) is almost always taken to be 100 percent. As the reasoning goes, the same fundamental laws apply to the entire universe, and because those laws engendered the genesis of life on Earth — and relatively early in its history at that — they must readily spawn life elsewhere, too. As the Russian astrobiologist Andrei Finkelstein put it at a recent SETI press conference, "the genesis of life is as inevitable as the formation of atoms."

But in a new paper published on arXiv.org, astrophysicist David Spiegel at Princeton University and physicist Edwin Turner at the University of Tokyo argue that this thinking is dead wrong. Using a statistical method called Bayesian reasoning, they argue that the life here on Earth could be common, or it could be extremely rare — there's no reason to prefer one conclusion over the other. With their new analysis, Spiegel and Turner say they have erased the one Drake factor scientists felt confident about and replaced it with a question mark.

While it's true that life arose quickly on Earth (within the planet's first few hundred million years), the researchers point out that if it hadn't done so, there wouldn't have been enough time for intelligent life — humans — to have evolved. So, in effect, we're biased. It took at least 3.5 billion years for intelligent life to evolve on Earth, and the only reason we're able to contemplate the likelihood of life today is that its evolution happened to get started early. This requisite good luck is entirely independent of the actual probability of life emerging on a habitable planet.

"Although life began on this planet fairly soon after the Earth became habitable, this fact is consistent with … life being arbitrarily rare in the Universe," the authors state. In the paper, they prove this statement mathematically.

Their result doesn't mean we're alone — only that there's no reason to think otherwise. "[A] Bayesian enthusiast of extraterrestrial life should be significantly encouraged by the rapid appearance of life on the early Earth but cannot be highly confident on that basis," the authors conclude. Our own existence implies very little about how many other times life has arisen.

Two data points rather than just one would make all the difference, the researchers say. If life is found to have arisen independently on Mars, then scientists would be in a much better position to assert that, under the right conditions, the genesis of life is inevitable.

This article was provided by Life's Little Mysteries, a sister site to SPACE.com. Follow us on Twitter @llmysteries, then join us on Facebook. Follow Natalie Wolchover on Twitter @nattyover.
 
I've always wondered why we assume that "intelligent life" has to be made of the same building blocks as what we consider "life" on Earth? Why is it assumed that something capable of communicating can't arise from drastically different atomic building blocks?
 
I've always wondered why we assume that "intelligent life" has to be made of the same building blocks as what we consider "life" on Earth? Why is it assumed that something capable of communicating can't arise from drastically different atomic building blocks?

As the Russian astrobiologist Andrei Finkelstein put it at a recent SETI press conference, "the genesis of life is as inevitable as the formation of atoms."
 
As the Russian astrobiologist Andrei Finkelstein put it at a recent SETI press conference, "the genesis of life is as inevitable as the formation of atoms."

Right, but the Drake Equation is using assumptions about something needing to be a "planet" and "habitable" with "rocky surfaces, water and atmospheres". This seems to be assuming the "life" would have to be similar to us, which seems like a silly assumption.
 
Right, but the Drake Equation is using assumptions about something needing to be a "planet" and "habitable" with "rocky surfaces, water and atmospheres". This seems to be assuming the "life" would have to be similar to us, which seems like a silly assumption.

I get what you're saying, and I agree with it. There's a lot of issues involved, I think. Like people are used to seeing things the way they are and assume they're like that all over. Or the fact of observing something affects the observed results.
 
The fact Maris is around seems like proof of life not on this planet.




OK, OK, I just HAD to say that. Apologies to Maris.
 
I'm guessing we've had radio signals for maybe 100 years. Probably less. Since most of these planets are more than 100 light years away their signals will not reach us for quite some time if their civilizations have been developing at the same pace as ours.
 
Well there might be life out there, but yeah I am not sure if I'd believe they'd have developed the same tech that we have. For all we know there is a planet full of jellyfish that have been floating there for millions of billions of years. Also perhaps we don't want to find other people, for all we know there might be Space Nazis out there who want to cause intergalactic genocide.
 
I like that Jodie Foster movie, Contact, and how they received messages via space. I'm fascinated by the idea that if you could go out in space far enough, you could hear old broadcasts or tv or radio shows.
 
I like that Jodie Foster movie, Contact, and how they received radio waves. I'm fascinated by the idea that if you could go out in space far enough, you could hear old broadcasts or tv or radio shows.

Except you can't go out in space fast enough to catch up with the old broadcasts or tv or radio shows. Speed of light is a bitch.
 
Except you can't go out in space fast enough to catch up with the old broadcasts or tv or radio shows. Speed of light is a bitch.

yeah, which is why I said "the IDEA that IF you COULD".

Jeesh, mr smarty pants!
 
yeah, which is why I said "the IDEA that IF you COULD".

Jeesh, mr smarty pants!

Well, you can't really go out past 6000 light years, since that's when the universe was made.

;)
 
I've always wondered why we assume that "intelligent life" has to be made of the same building blocks as what we consider "life" on Earth? Why is it assumed that something capable of communicating can't arise from drastically different atomic building blocks?


I used to ask the same question until I read a short article somewhere that explained it simply: The reason that scientists search only for life based upon water and oxygen is that the alternatives occur so rarely. It's true that 1% of life out there may be based on other elements, but scientists play the odds and just search for the 99% probability, water and oxygen.

The article I wish I had saved showed that alternative combinations would cover a tiny percentage of planets, like 1%. A creature made of silicon would take years to move a few feet. Life would move in slow motion and would need a life expectancy lasting centuries.

This other, much longer article goes over all the possibilities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_types_of_biochemistry
 
Well, you can't really go out past 6000 light years, since that's when the universe was made.

;)

Not if God made it so you could. He's not bound to your silly scientific "laws". ;)
 
Right, but the Drake Equation is using assumptions about something needing to be a "planet" and "habitable" with "rocky surfaces, water and atmospheres". This seems to be assuming the "life" would have to be similar to us, which seems like a silly assumption.

My understanding is that it's related to chemistry. Meaning, what we are based off are chemicals that oxidize and water dilutes things easily. Because of this fact, our chemistry makes transferring energy/chemicals easier. Something along those lines anyway.
 
I like that Jodie Foster movie, Contact, and how they received messages via space. I'm fascinated by the idea that if you could go out in space far enough, you could hear old broadcasts or tv or radio shows.

Actually science has recently made the realization that it wouldn't work that way. The problem is that radio waves emit spherically, and each distance it travels, the signal decreases by a power of the third. Now if you had a lased signal, or maybe just collimated, it would work the way it does in the movies.
 
The problem is that radio waves emit spherically, and each distance it travels, the signal decreases by a power of the third.

The area of a sphere is 4 pi r squared. So the area is 4 (2 squared) times as much at 2 light years out as at 1 light year out. So every time you double the distance, the strength of the signal is 1/4 as much.
 
The area of a sphere is 4 pi r squared. So the area is 4 (2 squared) times as much at 2 light years out as at 1 light year out. So every time you double the distance, the strength of the signal is 1/4 as much.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law

In physics, an inverse-square law is any physical law stating that a specified physical quantity or strength is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source of that physical quantity.
 
The Bible is mute on the subject of life on other planets. Maybe there is and maybe there isn't. But if there is, I'll bet they didn't turn against their creator.
 
The Bible is mute on the subject of life on other planets. Maybe there is and maybe there isn't. But if there is, I'll bet they didn't turn against their creator.

Or maybe they could be so advanced that they found out there isn't a creator.
 
mormons believe that there are lots of planets, and that we can be gods to all of them, just like our god was originaly a dude from the kolob system
 
I think it's the place the Red Lobster food goes after the stomach and before the rectum.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top